The article is aimed at discussing social innovation and co-production under a common analytical framework in order to contribute, without attempts of comprehensiveness, to the debate on how to indicate new opportunities to foster innovation in strategic planning. In the Paper co-production and social innovation are considered as mutual supporting elements in the creation of ‘trading zones’: spaces of strong interaction for mobilizing varied (and also conflicting) collective intelligence; middle ground spaces of confrontation able to institutionalize co-production and scale-up social innovation, in a long-term process that might transform how local institutions and strategic planning operate. Within this framework, the case study of Bologna in Italy is discussed, highlighting criticalities and opportunities in a city that has invested in specific planning mechanisms aimed at linking coproduction and social innovation within a common policy effort.
AlbrechtsL (2013) Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective. Planning Theory12(1): 46–63.
2.
AlbrechtsLBarbanenteAMonnoV (2019) From stage-managed planning towards a more imaginative and inclusive strategic spatial planning. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 37(8), 1489–1506. DOI: 10.1177/2399654419825655.
3.
BaileyNPillM (2014) The potential for neighbourhood regeneration in a period of austerity. Changing forms of neighbourhood governance in two cities. Journal of Urban Regeneration & Renewal7(2): 150–163.
4.
BalducciAMäntysaloR (eds) (2013) Urban planning as a trading zone. Dordrecht: Springer.
5.
BalducciA (2008) Constructing (spatial) strategies in complex environments. In: Van den BroeckJMoulaertFOosterlynckS (eds) Empowering the planning fields: ethics, creativity and action. Leuven: Acco.
6.
BalducciA (2015) Strategic planning as the intentional production of a “Trading Zone”. City, Territory and Architecture: 2:7.
7.
BianchiI (2018) The post-political meaning of the concept of commons: the regulation of the urban commons in Bologna. Space and Polity22(3): 287–306.
8.
BlancoINel·loO (2018) Can Social Innovation be the Answer? The Role of Citizen Action in the Face of Increasing Socio-Spatial Polarization. TERRITORIO83: 7–16.
9.
BoarelliM (2010) Un mondo a parte: il declino del ceto politico. In: BoarelliMLambertiniLPerrottaM (eds) Bologna al bivio. Una città come le altre?Roma: Edizioni dell’asino.
10.
BockB (2012) Social innovation and sustainability: how to disentangle the buzzword and its application in the field of agriculture and rural development. Studies in Agricultural Economics114(2): 57–63.
11.
BockB (2016) Rural Marginalisation and the Role of Social Innovation; A Turn Towards Nexogenous Development and Rural Reconnection. Sociologia Ruralis56(4).
12.
BovairdT (2007) Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review67(5): 846–860.
13.
BragagliaF (2020) Social innovation as a ‘magic concept’ for policy-makers and its implications for urban governance. Planning Theory20(2): 1–19.
14.
BricocoliMSabatinelliS (2016) House sharing amongst young adults in the context of Mediterranean welfare: the case of Milan. International Journal of Housing Policy16(2): 184–200.
15.
BrudneyJLEnglandRE (1983) Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review43 (1): 59–65.
16.
CahnE (2000) No more throw-away people: the co-production imperative. Washington: Essential Books.
17.
Castro-ArceKVanclayF (2020) Transformative social innovation for sustainable rural development: An analytical framework to assist community-based initiatives. Journal of Rural Studies74: 45–54.
DeFillipisJFischerRShraggeE (2006) Neither romance nor regulation: re-evaluating community. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research30: 673–689.
21.
De LeoDBologneseA (2021) L’impegno delle università per le disuguaglianze territoriali. Riflessioni a partire da snai. Territorio (98): 83–91. DOI: 10.3280/TR2021-098014.
22.
DeleuzeG (1995) Negotiations 1972-1990. New York: Columbia University Press.
23.
FainsteinS (2000) New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review35(4): 451–478.
24.
FincherR (2015) Urban policies and the intercultural city: A reflection on norms and contexts. In: MarconiGOstanelE (eds) The intercultural city: Migration, minorities and the management of Diversity. London: IB Tauris, pp.178–187.
25.
ForesterJ (2009) Dealing with differences. Dramas of mediating public disputes. Oxford University Press, New York.
26.
FosterSRIaioneC (2019) Ostrom in the city. Design principles and practices for the urban commons. In HudsonBRosenbloomJColeD (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons (1st ed.). Routledge.
27.
GalisonP (1999) Trading zone: coordinating action and belief (1998 abridgment). In: BiagioliM (ed) The Science Studies Reader. Routledge.
28.
GeromettaJHaussermannHLongoG (2005) Social innovation and civil society in urban governance: strategies for an inclusive city. Urban Studies42(11): 2007–2021.
29.
HaasA (2015) Crowding at the frontier: Boundary spanners, gatekeepers and knowledge brokers. Journal of Knowledge Management19(5): 1029–1047.
30.
HealeyP (2015) Transforming Governance: Challenges of Institutional Adaptation and a New Politics of Space. In: HillierJMetzgerJ (eds), Connections Exploring Contemporary Planning Theory and Practice with Patsy Healey. London, Routledge, 1–18.
31.
HeiskalaR (2007) Social innovations: structural and power perspectives. Social innovations, institutional change and economic performance, 1, 52–79.
32.
HillierJ (2013) Towards a Deleuzean-inspired methodology for social innovation research and practice. In: MoulaertFMacCallumDMehmoodAHamdouchA (eds) The International Handbook on social innovation, collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Cheltenham: Elgar.
33.
JoshiAMickM (2006) Institutionalised Coproduction: Unorthodox Public Service Delivery in Challenging Environments. Journal of Development Studies, 40(4): 31–49.
34.
JungsbergLCopusAByskov HerslundLNilssonKPerjoLRandallLBerlinaA (2020) Key actors in community-driven social innovation in rural areas in the Nordic countries. Journal of Rural Studies79, 276–285.
35.
KleinJLHarrissonD (eds) (2007) L’innovation sociale: émergence et effets sur la transformation des sociétés. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
36.
KleinhansR (2017) False promises of co-production in neighbourhood regeneration: the case of Dutch community enterprises. Public Management Review: an International Journal of Research and Theory, 1–19.
LudvigAGerhardaWSimobSMariacNIvanaaZ (2018) Mapping European and forest related policies supporting social innovation for rural settings. Forest Policy and Economics97, 146–152.
39.
MacCallumDMoulaertFHillierJVicari HaddockS (2009) Social innovation and territorial development. UK: Ashgate Publishing.
40.
MaddenDMarcuseP (2016) In defense of housing. The politics of crisis. NewYork: Versobooks.
41.
MassariM (2019) The Transformative Power of Social Innovation for New Development Models. In: CalabròFDella SpinaLBevilacquaC (eds) New Metropolitan Perspectives. ISHT 2018. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 100. Springer, Cham.
42.
MartinelliF (2010) Historical roots of social change: philosophies and movements. In: MoulaertFMartinelliFSwyngedouwEGonzalezS, Can Neighbourhoods save the city? Community development and social innovation. London: Routledge.
43.
MartinelliF (2012) Social innovation or social exclusion? Innovating Social Services. In: FranzHWHochgernerJHowaldtJ (eds.) Challenge Social Innovation. Potential for Business, Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society, Berlin: Springer.
44.
MäntysaloRBalducciAKangasojaJ (2011) Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone: Re-examining Lindblom’s partisan mutual adjustment. Planning Theory10(3) 257–272.
45.
MazzaL (2015) Spazio e cittadinanza, Roma: Donzelli editore.
46.
MeyersonMBanfieldE (1955) Politics, planning and the Public Interest, New York: Free.
47.
MitlinD (2008) With and beyond the state – Co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations. Environment and Urbanization20(2): 339–360.
48.
MonardoBMassariM (2021) A New Generation of ‘Urban Centers’: ‘Intermediate Places’ in Boston and Bologna». In: BevilacquaCCalabròF.Della SpinaL. (eds) New Metropolitan Perspectives. NMP 2020. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol. 178. Cham: Springer, pp 925–938.
49.
MoulaertFMartinelliFSwyngedouwEGonzalezS (2005) Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Studies42(11): 1969–1990.
50.
MoulaertFNussbaumerJ (2005) Defining the social economy and its governance at neighbourhood level. A methodological reflexion. Urban Studies, 42(11): 2071–2088.
51.
MoulaertFMacCallumDMehmoodAHamdouchA (eds) (2013) The International Handbook on social innovation, collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Cheltenham: Elgar.
52.
MoulaertFMehmoodAMacCallumDLeuboltB (eds) (2017) Social Innovation as a Trigger for Transformations. The Role of Research. European Commission, Research and Innovation.
53.
MulganG (2006) The process of social innovation. Innovations1(2): 145–162.
54.
MullerR (1977) Education: a school that has still to be invented. In: JäggiMMüllerRSchmidS (eds) The Red Bologna. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative.
55.
MumfordM. D. (2002) Social innovation: ten cases from Benjamin Franklin.Creativity research journal, 14(2), 253–266.
56.
NabatchiTSancinoASiciliaM (2017) Varieties of participation in public services: the Who, When, and What of coproduction. Public Administration Review77(5): 766–776.
57.
NovyALeuboltB (2005) Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: social innovation and the dialectical relationship of State and civil society. Urban Studies42(11): 2023–2036.
58.
NysethTHamdouchA (2019) The transformative power of social innovation in urban planning and local development. Urban Planning4(1): 1–6.
59.
OosterlynckSVan den BroeckJAlbrechtsLMoulaertFVerhetselA (eds) (2011) Strategic spatial projects: catalysts for change Abingdon. Routledge.
60.
OrioliV.MassariM. (2020) Lo spazio dell’interazione: Luoghi, attori e strumenti a Bologna». In: TaliaM (eds) Le nuove comunità urbane e il valore strategico della conoscenza. come i processi cognitive possono motivare la politica, garantire l’utilità del piano, offrire una via d’uscita dall’emergenza. Roma: Planum Publischer, pp 186–192.
61.
OsborneSPRadnorZStrokoschK (2016) Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment?Public Management Review18(5): 639–653.
62.
OstanelE (2020a) Community-based responses to unjust processes of neighbourhood change in Parkdale, Toronto. In: BunceSLivingstoneNMarchLMooreSWalksA. Critical Dialogues of Urban Governance, Development and Activism. London and Toronto: UCL Press, pp. 246–259.
63.
OstanelE (2020b) (In)visibilizing Vulnerable Community Members: Processes of Urban Inclusion and Exclusion in Parkdale, Toronto. Space and Culture0(0). DOI: 10.1177/1206331220944103.
64.
OstanelE (2021) Public support to social innovation. The need of a planning perspective. Territorio99: 56–60.
65.
OstromE (1996) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy and development. World Development24(6): 1073–1087.
66.
PeckJNikTBrennerN (2013) Neoliberal Urbanism Redux?International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37(3): 1091–1099.
67.
PradelMGarciaMEizaguirreS (2013) Theorizing multi-level governance in social innovation dynamics. In: MoulaertFMacCallumDMehmoodAHamdouchA (eds) The International Handbook of Social Innovation. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar, 155–168.
68.
PutnamR (2004) Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
69.
SampsonRJ (2012) Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
70.
SaviniF (2016) Self-organization and urban development: disaggregating the City-Region, deconstructing urbanity in Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research40(6): 1152–1169.
71.
SchillerM (2022) Urban planners as boundary spanners: Steering perceptions of asylum seeker accommodations in Germany. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 40(3): 763–778. DOI: 10.1177/23996544211035401.
72.
SchmidS (1977) The precondition. In The Red Bologna. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative.
73.
SendraPFitzpatrickD (2020) Time to be an activist: Recent successes in housing activism in London. In: BunceSLivingstoneNMarchLMooreSWalksA. Critical Dialogues of Urban Governance, Development and Activism. London and Toronto: UCL Press, pp. 259–273.
74.
ServilloLAVan der BroekP (2012) The social construction of planning system. A strategic relational institutionalist approach. Planning Practice and Research27(1): 41–61.
75.
SiameGWatsonV (2022) Co-production and the issue of urban up-scaling and governance change in the global south: The case of Uganda. Planning Theory. 21(3), 269–290. DOI: 10.1177/14730952221076601.
76.
StarSLGriesemerJR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals. In Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci19:387–420.
77.
TedescoC (2019) Percorsi di rigenerazione urbana creative. In: MarsonA. (eds) Urbanistica e pianificazione nella prospettiva territorialista, Macerata: Quodlibet, pp. 141–150.
78.
TushmanM (1977) Communication across organizational boundaries: Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly22(4): 117–587.
79.
UitermarkJ (2015) Longing forWikitopia: The study and politics of self-organisation. Urban Studies52(13): 2301–2312.
80.
VigarGPaulCHealeyP (2020) Innovation in planning: creating and securing public value. European Planning Studies28(3): 521–540.
81.
VoorbergWHBekkersVJJMTummersLG (2015) A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review17(9): 1333–1357.
82.
WalksAMaaranenR (2008) Gentrification, Social Mix, and Social Polarization: Testing the Linkages in Large Canadian Cities. Urban Geography29(4): 293–326. DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.29.4.293.
83.
WatsonV (2014) Co-production and collaboration in planning – The difference. Planning Theory & Practice15(1): 62–76.
